- (1.) This is a petition by some freedom fighters and dependants of other freedom fighters claiming pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The Scheme was introduced by the Government of India on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Independence. It commenced on 15th August, 1972 and provided for the grant of pension to freedom fighters and if they were not alive to their families and also to the families of the martyrs. The minimum pension sanctioned to the freedom fighters was Rs. 200 per month and for their families, it varied from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 in accordance with the size and the number of eligible dependants in the family. Till 31st July, 1980 the pension was admissible only to those whose gross annual income did not exceed Rs. 5000/-. From 1st August 1980, the benefit of the Scheme was extended to all freedom fighters irrespective of their income and as a token of honour (Sanman) to them. From that date, the maximum quantum of pension was also increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/-for freedom fighters and the minimum was enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- to the widows of the late freedom fighters with addition of Rs. 50/- per month for each unmarried daughter with a maximum limit of Rs. 300/- per month. The eligibility to get the Sanman pension, as it came to be called from 1st August, 1980, depended upon the freedom fighter having suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months. However, if the freedom fighter was a woman or belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, the minimum period of actual imprisonment was reduced to three months. While explaining the meaning of the actual imprisonment the Scheme states; (a) the detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment; (b) the period of normal remission up to one month would be treated as part of the actual imprisonment; (c) in case the trial ended in conviction, the undertrial period would be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered; (d) the broken period of imprisonment would be totalled up for computing the qualifying period; (e) the person remaining underground for more than six months, provided he was a proclaimed offender or one for whom an award for arrest or for his head was announced or one for whose detention order was issued but not served and (f) the person Interned in his home or externed from his district for six months or more, a person whose property was confiscated or attached or sold due to participation in the freedom struggle, a person who became permanently incapacitated on account of violence inflicted on him during such struggle, a person who lost his Govt. job Central or State and thus the means of livelihood for participation in such struggle, were also made eligible for the pension. In September 1985, on the recommendations of the non-official advisory committee at the Central level the Government renamed the Pension Scheme, and also enhanced the quantum of the pension by its circular/ letter of 30th September, 1985. It informed all the State Governments and Union Territory Administration that the Scheme was renamed as Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme. The circular further informed that the Scheme was extended with retrospective effect from 1980 to those who participated in the Arya Samaj Movement of 1936-39 which took place in the former Hyderabad State. The quantum of monthly pension admissible to the freedom fighters and their widows was raised to Rs. 500/- with effect from 1st June, 1985 and the unmarried daughters of the widows who had been sanctioned family pension became entitled to additional pension of Rs. 50/-per month.
(2.) In Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1989 Duli Chand v. Union of India where the claim for pension was made by the petitioners, the Union of India did not file a counter. On the other hand, a statement was made on their behalf that on documents being produced in support of the claim, there would be no objection to granting the pension. It does not further appear that any contention was raised on behalf of the Government that the pension should not be made payable with retrospective effect. The facts, on the other hand, reveal that one of the petitioners in that writ petition was granted pension by the Government with effect from 1st August, 1980 during the pendency of the petition. It is on these facts, that this Court by its order of 16th July, 1990 made in that petition, directed that 41 of the petitioners should be granted pension with effect from 1st August, 1980 although they had made their applications beyond the date which was prescribed for making application. Writ Petition No. 75 of 1991 - Surja v. Union of India - was filed by some of the participants in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930s in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. The participants in question were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment exceeding six months. The Union of India filed a counter-affidavit and pointed out that the earlier petition, viz., W. P. No. 1190 of 1989 [Supra] was decided ex parte and by accepting all the allegations, made by the petitioners therein. The Court, therefore, felt that it would not be appropriate to dispose of the petition by adopting the order made by it in the earlier petition. One of the questions which fell for consideration was whether the petitioners had suffered the minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment on account of their participation in the said Movement, which was the qualifying period of imprisonment under the Scheme. It was found from the material produced by most of the petitioners that they were sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceeding six months. However, while they were undergoing their sentences, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday, and without their asking for the same, their sentences were reduced and they were set free. In view of the fact that the petitioners' sentences were reduced without their praying for the same, it was held that the petitioners had satisfied the condition under the Scheme, viz., that they had been imprisoned for six months. While interpreting the qualifying condition of six months' imprisonment, it was in terms held that if a prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more and if the period of actual imprisonment was reduced not on account of his claiming any remission, he should be deemed to have fulfilled the qualifying period of imprisonment for six months. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioners was accepted and they were directed to be paid pension with effect from 1st August, 1980. Here again, it may be pointed out, it was not contended on behalf of the Union of India that the pension should not be made payable with retrospective effect and hence there was no occasion to consider whether notwithstanding the delay in making the application and whatever the date on which the applicant made the claim, he should be entitled to the same with effect from the retrospective date as if he had made his application in time, viz., before the date prescribed for making such application.
(3.) Coming now to the present petition, the petitioners/ the late freedom fighters are persons who had participated in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930s in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. In view of the amendment made to the Scheme by the Government Circular/letter dated 30th September, 1985, the petitioners would undisputedly be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme provided, of course, they produced the relevant material in support of their claim. This is not disputed on behalf of the Union of India. However, three contentions have been raised. Firstly, the petitioners have not produced the required proof in support of their claim that they had in fact participated in the movement and were sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more. Secondly, they had filed their applications before the Government after the date prescribed for filing the application. And thirdly, in any case, if it is held that they satisfied the qualifying conditions under the Scheme, they would be entitled to the pension only from the date they produced the required documentary proof in, support of their claim and not from any earlier date.;